Kurieuo wrote:The number one reason I'm not an Atheist is because I'd be forced via logic to deny an "I", an ego, a self, exists. That is, if I'm an Atheist and logically consistent with the physical natural world being all that there is, then I'd have to accept that there isn't really an "I" but rather an ensemble of particles bouncing around with chemical reactions and my identify is actually a mirage.

It's more sensible to embrace beliefs which allow me to logically accept as a minimum that I really do exist and make decisions. That much seems obvious to me without any logic whatsoever since I feel and experience things straight up and direct to myself.

Sorry, I'm a little dyslexic at times and read the opposite to what is said.
Thanks for making fun of it.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Kurieuo wrote:The number one reason I'm not an Atheist is because I'd be forced via logic to deny an "I", an ego, a self, exists. That is, if I'm an Atheist and logically consistent with the physical natural world being all that there is, then I'd have to accept that there isn't really an "I" but rather an ensemble of particles bouncing around with chemical reactions and my identify is actually a mirage.

It's more sensible to embrace beliefs which allow me to logically accept as a minimum that I really do exist and make decisions. That much seems obvious to me without any logic whatsoever since I feel and experience things straight up and direct to myself.

Sorry, I'm a little dyslexic at times and read the opposite to what is said.
Thanks for making fun of it.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

Unfortunately, the article has been deleted.
Here are my reasons:
- If I don't see I wouldn't believe. This is just a statement that was developed in my mind. There are a lot of things that people talk about but never seen. Not only religion things. I believe in facts.
- I see no logic in that. I read The Bible, I read historical facts and there is no logical connection between a lot of situations.

Unfortunately, the article has been deleted.
Here are my reasons:
- If I don't see I wouldn't believe. This is just a statement that was developed in my mind. There are a lot of things that people talk about but never seen. Not only religion things. I believe in facts.
- I see no logic in that. I read The Bible, I read historical facts and there is no logical connection between a lot of situations.

You don't believe in gravity? quantum mechanics? dark matter and energy? The age of the universe?

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

If empirical verifiability is the only criteria that counts as valid proof, then there is no way I can rationally accept anything beyond the reach of such verification. That would include anything historical or events that happen which I'm not directly privy to.

What you have demonstrated above, if you believe "Napoleon" even existed, is that for you, you are accepting some other sort of reasons or justifications that aren't empirically based.

Your "proofs" for such clearly aren't by means of your seeing Napoleon or being present at the time of his supposed great military accomplishments, but due to... it'd seem... your subjective feelings on the matter and how well the story fits in with a worldview you have been conditioned with. But, such doesn't make it true.

Consider this. If I say I walked across the road today, rather than levitated across or flapped my arms and flew across. Just because the latter two are at odds with a more natural and believed method of crossing, it doesn't mean I did therefore across walk the road today. In fact, none of them have happened. I know, shocking right?

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

It might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

It is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.

If empirical verifiability is the only criteria that counts as valid proof, then there is no way I can rationally accept anything beyond the reach of such verification. That would include anything historical or events that happen which I'm not directly privy to.

What you have demonstrated above, if you believe "Napoleon" even existed, is that for you, you are accepting some other sort of reasons or justifications that aren't empirically based.

Your "proofs" for such clearly aren't by means of your seeing Napoleon or being present at the time of his supposed great military accomplishments, but due to... it'd seem... your subjective feelings on the matter and how well the story fits in with a worldview you have been conditioned with. But, such doesn't make it true.

Consider this. If I say I walked across the road today, rather than levitated across or flapped my arms and flew across. Just because the latter two are at odds with a more natural and believed method of crossing, it doesn't mean I did therefore across walk the road today. In fact, none of them have happened. I know, shocking right?

If you tell me you walked down the road today, I would likely accept that claim without question because people walk down roads everyday so for you to claim to have done it (whether you did it or not) is all the evidence I need to believe you.
However, if you tell me you traveled down the road today in a way that defies the laws of nature, using a method that is humanly impossible, now your word isn’t good enough; I am going to require more evidence; perhaps even a demonstration.

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

It might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

It is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Nothing said to have happened in history is rational to believe. I wasn't there to experience it so how can I know? Since I can't verify it, or that anything truly existed before me, then I'm going remain agnostic and even without a belief on absolutely everything outside of my experience. That is the most sane and logical thing to do right?

If a history book said a military leader named Napoleon Bonaparte invaded and went to war with Italy approx 250 years ago, and it contained photos of war declaration and surrender documents complete with signatures of the leaders of that time, would that be enough for you to believe it?
Suppose another book told you Napoleon defeated Italy by holding his hands up towards the sky which prevented the Sun from setting, and this is what allowed his army to defeat Italy, but provided no photos of anything to back it up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

Suppose a history book said a civil rights leader named Martin Luther King held rallies all over the USA approx 50 years ago, which resulted in many laws being changed and it provided photos of the events, along with photos of King with political leaders of the time signing legislation that changed laws during that time. Would that be enough for you to believe it?

Suppose another book said Martin Luther King was shot and killed, but 3 days later he rose from the dead and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue with his work, and then he just walked away into the sunset, and no photos backed anything up. Would you consider both books with equal credibility?

It might take alot of faith for you to believe that Martin Luther King rose from the dead three days later and spoke with his followers instructing them to continue his work,and then he just walked away into the sunset,no photos(Shroud of Turin?)backed anything up.But it is easy for God in human flesh to do even if I had no evidence and does not require much faith at all.

Of course it’s easy for you to believe it, you’re Christian! I know of a Rastafarian who believes Halle Selassie waved his arm across the sky while getting off the airplane, and caused it to rain ending the drought! Are you going to believe that? Neither will I.

It is atheism that has absolutely no evidence,muchless proof it is correct to live your life as if God does not exist and yet you choose to do it anyway.There are many reasons to believe in Jesus and people have many different reasons why they do but I'd believe in Jesus over any other god or atheism just based on afterlifes alone. As Christianity has the most awesome afterlife of any other religion and atheism too where there is no afterlife,no heaven or hell,just death. Very boring afterlife to look forward to if you're right about atheism but it won't effect me either way,but will you.

So you believe the claims of Christianity because it's after life sounds exciting? Really???

Yep! Just dying that atheism offers you is very boring! It is not appealing to me at all and I'd never agree to just die over what Jesus offers.It is a no-brainer for me if I compare what other religions offer and what atheism offers you.Why do you find just dying so appealing? Because it is exactly what atheism offers you. I truly long for all of the evil,sin,death,suffering,etc we experience in this world to be put in hell where it belongs and there be ultimate justice from God and the evil people in our world being put down and the world being restored to the way it always should have been. I mean are'nt you tired of seeing people suffer in this world? Well only Jesus Christ is going to put it all down.I love that.

Hebrews 12:2-3 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross,despising the shame,and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

2nd Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,lest the light of this glorious gospel of Christ,who is the image of God,should shine unto them.